The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[pioneerpete]

Getting to Murder 2: Finding George Zimmerman?s ?Depraved Mind?



Florida defines murder in the second degree as:


The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree . . .

Florida’s standard jury instruction for murder 2 notes that:


An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1.a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2.is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and
3.is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

Notice step 2. Under Florida law the mere fact that an armed man kills another who is unarmed does not prove a “depraved mind” (Poole v. State, Bellamy v. State, and Light v. State). Typically, the prosecution proves “ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent” through evidence of a long-standing grievance or some unusually wrongful or aggressive conduct on the part of the attacker.

1. Saying these words doesn't make here
2. These words don't describe his intent, ill will, hatred and spite are involved in the act itself.
3. If these words do that then every person in Florida traffic meets this standard.

I am leaning that he does not qualify for Murder2. I would have to read the Manslaughter charge to see if he fits in there.

Law of Self Defense ? Zimmerman Trial: If State can?t get murder 2, can they get manslaughter? Yes . . . and no

To clearly understand the issue, however, we need to take a step back, and consider what the State actually has to accomplish in this case (or, really, any self-defense case).

(1) They need to prove each and every element of a criminal charge–either murder 2 or manslaughter–beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) They have to disprove any single element of the legal defense of self-defense-beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ve mentioned there’s no way the State can prove murder 2. Manslaughter, however, should be a walk in the park. All that’s really required of the state is to prove (a) Zimmerman deliberately used force against Martin, and (b) Martin died as a result (I’m simplifying of course, but you get the idea).

Even if the state can prove the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt–and I believe they can–they still need to overcome Zimmerman’s claim of self defense if they wish to obtain a conviction on that charge.

Unless the State can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must conclude that Zimmerman did, in fact, act in self-defense. Because self-defense is an absolute justification for the use of deadly force against another, it matters not a whit if the elements of either murder 2 or manslaughter have been proven 2 beyond a reasonable doubt–the verdict must be “Not Guilty.”

 

[Sarah G]

The prosecution had its day. All they have left is cross examinations and a closing argument. And they can't bring up anything in cross that wasn't brought up in direct. It's over.

Unless the killer gets on the stand.

I believe the pretend lawyer Sunshine is forgetting the jury factor.

 

[pioneerpete]

In any matter, I can go in to a street right now and call someone an "asshole" or "******* punk" for literally anything, but that person doesn't have the right to assault me. When the assault occurs, that person has just escalated the situation by committing a crime. If I feel like I have no other option, and I am legally carrying a firearm I can shoot the person in self-defense. I may have been a jerk, and in the backyard the guy may have the right to punch me in the mouth, but legally he doesn't. I'm guilty of being a jerk. The other guy is guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm if the assault is persistent and with a foreign object aiding the assault.

"Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[1] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

So in this case did GZ speak those words to TM, or about him? I believe that is the key to your quote. Target. If TM didn't hear GZ call him an "asshole" or "******* punk" then how is he the target? Are "assholes" or "******* punks" on the "well-defined and narrowly limited class of speech"?

 

[Circe]

In any matter, I can go in to a street right now and call someone an "asshole" or "******* punk" for literally anything, but that person doesn't have the right to assault me. When the assault occurs, that person has just escalated the situation by committing a crime. If I feel like I have no other option, and I am legally carrying a firearm I can shoot the person in self-defense. I may have been a jerk, and in the backyard the guy may have the right to punch me in the mouth, but legally he doesn't. I'm guilty of being a jerk. The other guy is guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm if the assault is persistent and with a foreign object aiding the assault.

All the same, I'd like to see you do it a few times, see what happens........

Tough talk, but doesn't change the fact that I am right. Where you located and maybe I will stop by.

Tough talk, but invading a woman's property to scream profanities at her might not be the safest thing you ever did. Not this woman's property, anyway. I'm not interested in shooting just any fool tonight, but I hope you'll go out and Free Speech up however many people it takes till someone decides to dispose of you for the general good of the nation.

 

[Pheonixops]

In any matter, I can go in to a street right now and call someone an "asshole" or "******* punk" for literally anything, but that person doesn't have the right to assault me. When the assault occurs, that person has just escalated the situation by committing a crime. If I feel like I have no other option, and I am legally carrying a firearm I can shoot the person in self-defense. I may have been a jerk, and in the backyard the guy may have the right to punch me in the mouth, but legally he doesn't. I'm guilty of being a jerk. The other guy is guilty of assault with intent to do great bodily harm if the assault is persistent and with a foreign object aiding the assault.

"Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[1] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

So in this case did GZ speak those words to TM, or about him? I believe that is the key to your quote. Target. If TM didn't hear GZ call him an "asshole" or "******* punk" then how is he the target? Are "assholes" or "******* punks" on the "well-defined and narrowly limited class of speech"?

I wasn't referring to zimmerman, I was addressing your assertion that I put in bold above.

 

[Circe]

I want to know just what made Z (Zimmerman) so suspicious of TM. And we won't know unless he takes the stand and tells us.

What, a great hulking black kid in a hoodie, lurking around in the rain, just standing there?

Darn, if Zimmerman hadn't been suspicious he'd have been pretty non-observant! Anyone would have been suspicious.

That was one bad "youth." All that stolen jewelry in his backpack at school, the marijuana in his bloodstream that night, this was a no-good criminal type and he was probably casing the houses to burglarize them.

 

[pioneerpete]

"Fighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target.[1] Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction. It is also used in a general sense of words that when uttered tend to create (deliberately or not) a verbal or physical confrontation by their mere usage."

"The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine by a 9-0 decision in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire. It held that "insulting or 'fighting words,' those that by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace" are among the "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the prevention and punishment of [which] ... have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem."

So in this case did GZ speak those words to TM, or about him? I believe that is the key to your quote. Target. If TM didn't hear GZ call him an "asshole" or "******* punk" then how is he the target? Are "assholes" or "******* punks" on the "well-defined and narrowly limited class of speech"?

I wasn't referring to zimmerman, I was addressing your assertion that I put in bold above.

Added one word, sorry.

 

[RKMBrown]

There are a lot of people who have a lot more rep than I do. You are seriously shitting me if you are insinuating that I nor they never get negged. We ALL do. So suck it up. I have been on forums that have rep and forums where the staff don't want to be bothered. The rep is fun. Perhaps you need to do a little reflection on how to get the fun out of it. It makes the forum, fiery and dynamic. So, IMO, if you don't like it you can go piss up a rope. When you and your confederacy of fools get the rep is shut down a lot of people will leave and no one will be left but you whiners.

Wow Sunshine.. recruit your high rep friends to neg me too eh? What a looser.

 

[pioneerpete]

All the same, I'd like to see you do it a few times, see what happens........

Tough talk, but doesn't change the fact that I am right. Where you located and maybe I will stop by.

Tough talk, but invading a woman's property to scream profanities at her might not be the safest thing you ever did. Not this woman's property, anyway. I'm not interested in shooting just any fool tonight, but I hope you'll go out and Free Speech up however many people it takes till someone decides to dispose of you for the general good of the nation.

Yes ma'am. But you don't own the roadways. Thank you for wishing that I be murdered. Very patriotic.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Got to love Sunny Hostin on CNN saying Tracy Martin calling police officers liars is good for the prosecution.

Actually, belittling law enforcement on a nationally televised stream is quite bad for the prosecution.

Why? The jurors are what matters in the trial. If they feel like the police in that area are racist it may work

Then Zimmerman was automatically doomed from the get go, if that were the case.

 

[pioneerpete]

Jackson here is a list of possible defense witnesses:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/130321-Zimmerman-defense-witness-list.pdf

 

[Jackson]

1. Saying these words doesn't make here
2. These words don't describe his intent, ill will, hatred and spite are involved in the act itself.
3. If these words do that then every person in Florida traffic meets this standard.

I am leaning that he does not qualify for Murder2. I would have to read the Manslaughter charge to see if he fits in there.

Law of Self Defense ? Zimmerman Trial: If State can?t get murder 2, can they get manslaughter? Yes . . . and no

To clearly understand the issue, however, we need to take a step back, and consider what the State actually has to accomplish in this case (or, really, any self-defense case).

(1) They need to prove each and every element of a criminal charge–either murder 2 or manslaughter–beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) They have to disprove any single element of the legal defense of self-defense-beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ve mentioned there’s no way the State can prove murder 2. Manslaughter, however, should be a walk in the park. All that’s really required of the state is to prove (a) Zimmerman deliberately used force against Martin, and (b) Martin died as a result (I’m simplifying of course, but you get the idea).

Even if the state can prove the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt–and I believe they can–they still need to overcome Zimmerman’s claim of self defense if they wish to obtain a conviction on that charge.

Unless the State can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must conclude that Zimmerman did, in fact, act in self-defense. Because self-defense is an absolute justification for the use of deadly force against another, it matters not a whit if the elements of either murder 2 or manslaughter have been proven 2 beyond a reasonable doubt–the verdict must be “Not Guilty.”

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction:

(1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person;
(2) the defendant must have actually been provoked;
(3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and
(4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period


- Wikipedia
No where is there any mention of self defense.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

Welcome! Regardless of who side you are on, we love to hear your arguments. What do you think is the most important facts of this case?

Wow, thanks. I'm on the spot already.

I was hoping to do a lot of reading to refresh my memory of it all, there is so much.

Anyhow, I know it is unpopular, but I think the original analysis of GZ saying "coons" is near the top. It is very obvious to me he did say it. The difference between him being a definite racist saying such an inflammatory remark and "Well we don't know for sure" is a lot.

Of course, I have always been so thoroughly emotionally invested in Martin/Zimmerman because I believe people should be free to roam around without being controlled, stopped, finagled or questioned. Life is difficult enough without having to worry about people like Zimmy.

GZ's post-arrest troubles come to mind. He lied about where the donations were going and how much money he got. Stuff like that?

I share many of your concerns and I didn't mean to out you on the spot! So Sorry!

The ability to walk without being stalked is a biggie for me. I want to know just what made Z (Zimmerman) so suspicious of TM. And we won't know unless he takes the stand and tells us.

No problem, I was being a little facetious, I suppose. It is always a good time to get into the discussion whenever. I just don't want to say too much 'til I get oriented.

Yea, we got to hang onto tightly as much freedom as we can that we still have here in America, which isn't a lot.

It's starting to come back some now. GZ was suspicious of just about all his neighbors and people there where the tragedy occurred. You wouldn't want to spit on the sidewalk with him around.

 

[RKMBrown]

The prosecution had its day. All they have left is cross examinations and a closing argument. And they can't bring up anything in cross that wasn't brought up in direct. It's over.

Unless the killer gets on the stand.

I believe the pretend lawyer Sunshine is forgetting the jury factor.

Doesn't take a lawyer to recognize the case is lost. The jury could surprise us, but at this point it would be like a lightning strike. You can hear TM's dad pleading for a negligence charge today... why did GZ get out of the car. But I just don't see that happening either.

 

[pioneerpete]

I am leaning that he does not qualify for Murder2. I would have to read the Manslaughter charge to see if he fits in there.

Law of Self Defense ? Zimmerman Trial: If State can?t get murder 2, can they get manslaughter? Yes . . . and no

To clearly understand the issue, however, we need to take a step back, and consider what the State actually has to accomplish in this case (or, really, any self-defense case).

(1) They need to prove each and every element of a criminal charge–either murder 2 or manslaughter–beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) They have to disprove any single element of the legal defense of self-defense-beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ve mentioned there’s no way the State can prove murder 2. Manslaughter, however, should be a walk in the park. All that’s really required of the state is to prove (a) Zimmerman deliberately used force against Martin, and (b) Martin died as a result (I’m simplifying of course, but you get the idea).

Even if the state can prove the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt–and I believe they can–they still need to overcome Zimmerman’s claim of self defense if they wish to obtain a conviction on that charge.

Unless the State can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must conclude that Zimmerman did, in fact, act in self-defense. Because self-defense is an absolute justification for the use of deadly force against another, it matters not a whit if the elements of either murder 2 or manslaughter have been proven 2 beyond a reasonable doubt–the verdict must be “Not Guilty.”

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction:

(1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person;
(2) the defendant must have actually been provoked;
(3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and
(4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period


- Wikipedia
No where is there any mention of self defense.

That is pretty much what the attorney wrote in the blog post I linked to. However, if the state can't disprove self-defense, then they legally can't get a manslaughter conviction. Self-defense is an absolute defense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I am leaning that he does not qualify for Murder2. I would have to read the Manslaughter charge to see if he fits in there.

Law of Self Defense ? Zimmerman Trial: If State can?t get murder 2, can they get manslaughter? Yes . . . and no

To clearly understand the issue, however, we need to take a step back, and consider what the State actually has to accomplish in this case (or, really, any self-defense case).

(1) They need to prove each and every element of a criminal charge–either murder 2 or manslaughter–beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) They have to disprove any single element of the legal defense of self-defense-beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ve mentioned there’s no way the State can prove murder 2. Manslaughter, however, should be a walk in the park. All that’s really required of the state is to prove (a) Zimmerman deliberately used force against Martin, and (b) Martin died as a result (I’m simplifying of course, but you get the idea).

Even if the state can prove the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt–and I believe they can–they still need to overcome Zimmerman’s claim of self defense if they wish to obtain a conviction on that charge.

Unless the State can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must conclude that Zimmerman did, in fact, act in self-defense. Because self-defense is an absolute justification for the use of deadly force against another, it matters not a whit if the elements of either murder 2 or manslaughter have been proven 2 beyond a reasonable doubt–the verdict must be “Not Guilty.”

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction:

(1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person;
(2) the defendant must have actually been provoked;
(3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and
(4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period


- Wikipedia
No where is there any mention of self defense.

There was no heat of passion to involved, Jackson. That's why they claimed self defense. Manslaughter and SYG won't work. Murder 2 doesn't work because the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for convicting under Murder 2.

Thus, O'Mara was correct in applying FL self-defense law to Zimmerman's case.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/06/zimmerman-case-the-five-principles-of-the-law-of-self-defense/

 

[Jackson]

Jackson here is a list of possible defense witnesses:

http://lawofselfdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/130321-Zimmerman-defense-witness-list.pdf

Thank you, Pete.

 

[Jackson]

Law of Self Defense ? Zimmerman Trial: If State can?t get murder 2, can they get manslaughter? Yes . . . and no

To clearly understand the issue, however, we need to take a step back, and consider what the State actually has to accomplish in this case (or, really, any self-defense case).

(1) They need to prove each and every element of a criminal charge–either murder 2 or manslaughter–beyond a reasonable doubt.

(2) They have to disprove any single element of the legal defense of self-defense-beyond a reasonable doubt.

I’ve mentioned there’s no way the State can prove murder 2. Manslaughter, however, should be a walk in the park. All that’s really required of the state is to prove (a) Zimmerman deliberately used force against Martin, and (b) Martin died as a result (I’m simplifying of course, but you get the idea).

Even if the state can prove the elements of manslaughter beyond a reasonable doubt–and I believe they can–they still need to overcome Zimmerman’s claim of self defense if they wish to obtain a conviction on that charge.

Unless the State can disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must conclude that Zimmerman did, in fact, act in self-defense. Because self-defense is an absolute justification for the use of deadly force against another, it matters not a whit if the elements of either murder 2 or manslaughter have been proven 2 beyond a reasonable doubt–the verdict must be “Not Guilty.”

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction:

(1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person;
(2) the defendant must have actually been provoked;
(3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and
(4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period


- Wikipedia
No where is there any mention of self defense.

There was no heat of passion to involved, Jackson. That's why they claimed self defense. Manslaughter and SYG won't work.

There was fear on the part of Zimmerman.

 

[pioneerpete]

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction:

(1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person;
(2) the defendant must have actually been provoked;
(3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and
(4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period


- Wikipedia
No where is there any mention of self defense.

There was no heat of passion to involved, Jackson. That's why they claimed self defense. Manslaughter and SYG won't work.

There was fear on the part of Zimmerman.

That's the double edged sword. If they can prove he was in fear, then how much farther is it to go to fear for his life, and it has to be almost 100% proven he killed out of fear. Lots of reasonable doubt in there.

 

[TemplarKormac]

In most jurisdictions, voluntary manslaughter consists of an intentional killing that is accompanied by additional circumstances that mitigate, but do not excuse, the killing. The most common type of voluntary manslaughter occurs when a defendant is provoked to commit the Homicide. It is sometimes described as a heat of passion killing. In most cases, the provocation must induce rage or anger in the defendant, although some cases have held that fright, terror, or desperation will suffice.

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction:

(1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person;
(2) the defendant must have actually been provoked;
(3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and
(4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period


- Wikipedia
No where is there any mention of self defense.

There was no heat of passion to involved, Jackson. That's why they claimed self defense. Manslaughter and SYG won't work.

There was fear on the part of Zimmerman.

Passion and fear are two different emotions. Fear is linked to self-defense, not "heat of passion." Acting out of fear is one thing, acting out of passion is another. Evaluate the concept of culpable negligence. Zimmerman had to have engaged in recklessness which would be the direct cause of Trayvon's death, but as it so happens, Trayvon it seems started the fight that got himself killed.

"The term culpable negligence should be construed to mean a negligence of a higher degree than that which in civil cases is held to be gross negligence, and must be a negligence of a degree so gross as to be tantamount to a wanton disregard of, or utter indifference to, the safety of human life." [Smith v. State, 197 Miss. 802 (Miss. 1945)]